We study how digital platforms can choose competitive strategies to influence the number of multihoming consumers. Platforms compete for consumers and advertisers. A platform earns a premium from advertising to singlehomers, as it is a gatekeeper to these consumers. Competitive strategies leading to intense competition on the consumer side reduce profits on that side, but also increase consumer singlehoming and hence market power over advertisers. The size of the singlehoming premium determines where this competitive strategy ‘seesaw’ will end up. We apply this insight to four strategic choices that may increase singlehoming: reducing product differentiation, portfolio diversification through conglomerate mergers, the choice of compatibility and tying.
{"title":"Choosing Your Battles: Endogenous Multihoming and Platform Competition","authors":"M. Haan, Gijsbert Zwart, Nannette Stoffers","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3847216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3847216","url":null,"abstract":"We study how digital platforms can choose competitive strategies to influence the number of multihoming consumers. Platforms compete for consumers and advertisers. A platform earns a premium from advertising to singlehomers, as it is a gatekeeper to these consumers. Competitive strategies leading to intense competition on the consumer side reduce profits on that side, but also increase consumer singlehoming and hence market power over advertisers. The size of the singlehoming premium determines where this competitive strategy ‘seesaw’ will end up. We apply this insight to four strategic choices that may increase singlehoming: reducing product differentiation, portfolio diversification through conglomerate mergers, the choice of compatibility and tying.","PeriodicalId":236019,"journal":{"name":"University of Groningen Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"248 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130584227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dutch Abstract: Geschillen over een zonder instemming verschoven erfgrens tussen buren of over door de burger zonder enig recht of titel gebruikte gemeentegrond doen zich veelvuldig voor in Nederland. Er is echter geen wetenschappelijk onderzoek gedaan naar de vraag hoe vaak en in welke situaties illegaal grondgebruik in Nederland voorkomt. Dit onderzoek, gefinancierd door de Gratama stichting, vult deze lacune. Aan de hand van vijf case studies in Nederlandse gemeenten wordt onderzocht hoe vaak welke grond met welke oorspronkelijke functie, in welke omgeving en voor welke doeleinden illegaal wordt gebruikt. English Abstract: Throughout the Netherlands, land owners (or their lessees) use adjacent public or private land without any right. There is, however, no scientific empirical data on how often and where land is illegally used. On the basis of five empirical case studies, this research has the following aims: make an estimate of how often illegal land use occurs in the Netherlands; which kind of land is illegally used; in what kind of spatial context it is illegally used; and for what purpose it is illegally used.
{"title":"Landjepik in Nederland: Een verkennend empirisch onderzoek naar het gebruik zonder recht van gemeentegrond (Illegal Land Use in the Netherlands: An Explorative Empirical Study on the Use of Municipal Land Without Any Right)","authors":"Björn Hoops","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3080849","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3080849","url":null,"abstract":"Dutch Abstract: Geschillen over een zonder instemming verschoven erfgrens tussen buren of over door de burger zonder enig recht of titel gebruikte gemeentegrond doen zich veelvuldig voor in Nederland. Er is echter geen wetenschappelijk onderzoek gedaan naar de vraag hoe vaak en in welke situaties illegaal grondgebruik in Nederland voorkomt. Dit onderzoek, gefinancierd door de Gratama stichting, vult deze lacune. Aan de hand van vijf case studies in Nederlandse gemeenten wordt onderzocht hoe vaak welke grond met welke oorspronkelijke functie, in welke omgeving en voor welke doeleinden illegaal wordt gebruikt. \u0000 \u0000English Abstract: Throughout the Netherlands, land owners (or their lessees) use adjacent public or private land without any right. There is, however, no scientific empirical data on how often and where land is illegally used. On the basis of five empirical case studies, this research has the following aims: make an estimate of how often illegal land use occurs in the Netherlands; which kind of land is illegally used; in what kind of spatial context it is illegally used; and for what purpose it is illegally used.","PeriodicalId":236019,"journal":{"name":"University of Groningen Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124846173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-10-15DOI: 10.1163/22134514-00404007
D. Kochenov, J. Lindeboom
Contemporary thinking about nationality is surrounded by three persistent mythologies. First, all nationalities are equal. Second, there is a direct correlation between the power and size of the economy of a country and the quality of its nationality. Third, there is a correlation between the geographical scope of the rights granted by a nationality and the territory of the conferring state. Looking beyond the subjective feelings one may have towards one’s nationality, the widely diverging quality of nationalities can in fact be measured. In the Quality of Nationality Index, which this article introduces and discusses, an attempt has been made to develop and deploy a reliable and straightforward methodology to measure objectively the value of having a particular nationality, which would not be perception-based. Nationalities are not equal, at least not under the assumption that the level of expected welfare, education, healthcare, life chances, and global travel and settlement opportunities matter.
{"title":"Empirical Assessment of the Quality of Nationalities: The Quality of Nationality Index (QNI)","authors":"D. Kochenov, J. Lindeboom","doi":"10.1163/22134514-00404007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00404007","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary thinking about nationality is surrounded by three persistent mythologies. First, all nationalities are equal. Second, there is a direct correlation between the power and size of the economy of a country and the quality of its nationality. Third, there is a correlation between the geographical scope of the rights granted by a nationality and the territory of the conferring state. Looking beyond the subjective feelings one may have towards one’s nationality, the widely diverging quality of nationalities can in fact be measured. In the Quality of Nationality Index, which this article introduces and discusses, an attempt has been made to develop and deploy a reliable and straightforward methodology to measure objectively the value of having a particular nationality, which would not be perception-based. Nationalities are not equal, at least not under the assumption that the level of expected welfare, education, healthcare, life chances, and global travel and settlement opportunities matter.","PeriodicalId":236019,"journal":{"name":"University of Groningen Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"18 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114012555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This contribution reveals an uneasy relationship between principles-based regulation and public trust in financial institutions and services in the post-crisis era, with a particular focus on Dutch financial supervision legislation. The main question addressed is whether principles-based regulation is the right way to overcome the crisis of trust in the financial markets. The authors argue that the acceptance of principles-based regulation in the Dutch legal order is to be welcomed. At the same time, resort to principles-based regulation entails many challenges which may undermine its effectiveness and, hence, public trust in the financial markets. These challenges in the Netherlands include but are not limited to the absence of any significant pressure on the financial watchdogs to clarify the meaning of open norms, the lack of clarity concerning the status of public soft law already produced to this end, and tension between public and private soft law in shaping the content of open norms. Without addressing these challenges, principles-based regulation may prove to be too obscure to guide the financial services industry towards a cultural change.
{"title":"Principles-Based Regulation and Public Trust in the Post-Crisis World: The Dutch Case of Financial Services","authors":"H. Bröring, O. Cherednychenko","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3746600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3746600","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution reveals an uneasy relationship between principles-based regulation and public trust in financial institutions and services in the post-crisis era, with a particular focus on Dutch financial supervision legislation. The main question addressed is whether principles-based regulation is the right way to overcome the crisis of trust in the financial markets. The authors argue that the acceptance of principles-based regulation in the Dutch legal order is to be welcomed. At the same time, resort to principles-based regulation entails many challenges which may undermine its effectiveness and, hence, public trust in the financial markets. These challenges in the Netherlands include but are not limited to the absence of any significant pressure on the financial watchdogs to clarify the meaning of open norms, the lack of clarity concerning the status of public soft law already produced to this end, and tension between public and private soft law in shaping the content of open norms. Without addressing these challenges, principles-based regulation may prove to be too obscure to guide the financial services industry towards a cultural change.","PeriodicalId":236019,"journal":{"name":"University of Groningen Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115550970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article has been motivated by an observation: the lack of rigor by European bodies when they use scientific terms to address data protection and privacy issues raised by biometric technologies and biometric data. In particular, they improperly use the term ‘biometrics’ to mean at the same time ‘biometric data’, ‘identification method’, or ‘biometric technologies’. Based on this observation, there is a need to clarify what ‘biometrics’ means for the biometric community and whether and how the legal community should use the term in a data protection and privacy context. In parallel to that exercise of clarification, there is also a need to investigate the current legal definition of ‘biometric data’ as framed by European bodies at the level of the European Union and the Council of Europe. The comparison of the regulatory and scientific definitions of the term ‘biometric data’ reveals that the term is used in two different contexts. However, it is legitimate to question the role that the scientific definition could exercise on the regulatory definition. More precisely, the question is whether the technical process through which biometric information is extracted and transformed into a biometric template should be reflected in the regulatory definition of the term.
{"title":"Avoiding Terminological Confusion Between the Notions of ‘Biometrics’ and ‘Biometric Data’: An Investigation Into the Meanings of the Terms From a European Data Protection and a Scientific Perspective","authors":"C. Jasserand","doi":"10.1093/IDPL/IPV020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IDPL/IPV020","url":null,"abstract":"This article has been motivated by an observation: the lack of rigor by European bodies when they use scientific terms to address data protection and privacy issues raised by biometric technologies and biometric data. In particular, they improperly use the term ‘biometrics’ to mean at the same time ‘biometric data’, ‘identification method’, or ‘biometric technologies’. Based on this observation, there is a need to clarify what ‘biometrics’ means for the biometric community and whether and how the legal community should use the term in a data protection and privacy context. In parallel to that exercise of clarification, there is also a need to investigate the current legal definition of ‘biometric data’ as framed by European bodies at the level of the European Union and the Council of Europe. The comparison of the regulatory and scientific definitions of the term ‘biometric data’ reveals that the term is used in two different contexts. However, it is legitimate to question the role that the scientific definition could exercise on the regulatory definition. More precisely, the question is whether the technical process through which biometric information is extracted and transformed into a biometric template should be reflected in the regulatory definition of the term.","PeriodicalId":236019,"journal":{"name":"University of Groningen Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"150 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127223792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-11DOI: 10.1163/9789004299788_004
D. Kochenov
This contribution argues that the legal context of the EU is substantially different from the classical context within which the international law principle of good neighbourly relations is usually deployed, altering the traditional understanding of the principle to a great degree. Firstly, to be a good neighbour in the context of the Union implies not only respect for international law vis-à-vis neighbouring states and a strict adherence to the acquis. It also indispensably implies strict adherence to the values of the Union, including democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights – if not justice and minority protection. Being a good neighbour in the EU thus means being a particular type of state, embracing a particular type of constitutionalism. Secondly, the principle of good neighbourly relations, particularly in the context of EU enlargements and EU citizenship, implies that the Member States should be ready to adapt their national laws to the Union reality even outside the context of the EU acquis. In other words, having legitimate regulation in place, which is not in breach of international or EU law per se, can still amount to a violation of the principle of good neighbourly relations in the Union context. The examples of EU pre-accession conditionality in the fields of democracy and the rule of law, and of the recent reforms of the Slovak and Hungarian citizenship laws both suffice to make this point. Given the specificity of the legal reality of interdependence that the Union has shaped, it is perfectly legitimate to expect the EU to intervene should some Member States fail to internalise this special EU reality and cause negative externalities which start to affect others.
{"title":"The Internal Aspects of Good Neighbourliness in the EU: Loyalty and Values","authors":"D. Kochenov","doi":"10.1163/9789004299788_004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004299788_004","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution argues that the legal context of the EU is substantially different from the classical context within which the international law principle of good neighbourly relations is usually deployed, altering the traditional understanding of the principle to a great degree. Firstly, to be a good neighbour in the context of the Union implies not only respect for international law vis-à-vis neighbouring states and a strict adherence to the acquis. It also indispensably implies strict adherence to the values of the Union, including democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights – if not justice and minority protection. Being a good neighbour in the EU thus means being a particular type of state, embracing a particular type of constitutionalism. Secondly, the principle of good neighbourly relations, particularly in the context of EU enlargements and EU citizenship, implies that the Member States should be ready to adapt their national laws to the Union reality even outside the context of the EU acquis. In other words, having legitimate regulation in place, which is not in breach of international or EU law per se, can still amount to a violation of the principle of good neighbourly relations in the Union context. The examples of EU pre-accession conditionality in the fields of democracy and the rule of law, and of the recent reforms of the Slovak and Hungarian citizenship laws both suffice to make this point. Given the specificity of the legal reality of interdependence that the Union has shaped, it is perfectly legitimate to expect the EU to intervene should some Member States fail to internalise this special EU reality and cause negative externalities which start to affect others.","PeriodicalId":236019,"journal":{"name":"University of Groningen Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114364055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This edited working paper proposes a new way of appraising the process of European integration, taking the notion of Justice as a starting point. With a number of contributions from the leading theorists of EU integration as well as younger scholars and practitioners of European law, it adopts a multi-faceted approach to what the editors branded as a possible "justice deficit" in Europe, looking at procedural as well as substantive elements of justice, also connecting justice with legitimacy, democracy, the rule of law, and other key principles of European law. Taking justice seriously is no doubt an indispensable element of any mature constitutional system. In starting the debate on justice in the EU context and immediately involving a number of leading scholars into the debate, the working paper aims at bridging an important gap in our theorising of European integration and law by starting a wide exchange on the topic of key importance, which is the essence of Justice, informing the integration project in Europe.The following scholars contributed to the debate: Daniel Augenstein, Richard Bellamy, Grainne de Burca, Daniela Caruso, Damian Chalmers, Gareth Davies, Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Oliver Gerstenberg, Jane Holder, Dimitry Kochenov, Damjan Kukovec, Mattias Kumm, Justine Lacroix, Antonia Layard, Carole Lyons, Agustin J. Menendez, Jurgen Neyer, Danny Nicol, Fernanda Nicola, Jiri Priban, Andras Sajo, Robert Schutze, Joanne Scott, Suryapratim Roy, Stavros Tsakyrakis, Juri Viehoff, Neil Walker, Michael Wilkinson, Andrew Williams and Floris de Witte.
{"title":"Debating Europe's Justice Deficit: The EU, Swabian Housewives, Rawls, and Ryanair","authors":"Gráinne de Búrca, D. Kochenov, Andrew Williams","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2354568","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2354568","url":null,"abstract":"This edited working paper proposes a new way of appraising the process of European integration, taking the notion of Justice as a starting point. With a number of contributions from the leading theorists of EU integration as well as younger scholars and practitioners of European law, it adopts a multi-faceted approach to what the editors branded as a possible \"justice deficit\" in Europe, looking at procedural as well as substantive elements of justice, also connecting justice with legitimacy, democracy, the rule of law, and other key principles of European law. Taking justice seriously is no doubt an indispensable element of any mature constitutional system. In starting the debate on justice in the EU context and immediately involving a number of leading scholars into the debate, the working paper aims at bridging an important gap in our theorising of European integration and law by starting a wide exchange on the topic of key importance, which is the essence of Justice, informing the integration project in Europe.The following scholars contributed to the debate: Daniel Augenstein, Richard Bellamy, Grainne de Burca, Daniela Caruso, Damian Chalmers, Gareth Davies, Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Oliver Gerstenberg, Jane Holder, Dimitry Kochenov, Damjan Kukovec, Mattias Kumm, Justine Lacroix, Antonia Layard, Carole Lyons, Agustin J. Menendez, Jurgen Neyer, Danny Nicol, Fernanda Nicola, Jiri Priban, Andras Sajo, Robert Schutze, Joanne Scott, Suryapratim Roy, Stavros Tsakyrakis, Juri Viehoff, Neil Walker, Michael Wilkinson, Andrew Williams and Floris de Witte.","PeriodicalId":236019,"journal":{"name":"University of Groningen Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130499122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-11-01DOI: 10.1093/CHINESEJIL/JMP025
Jin Huang, Lianbin Song, Qingming Li, Weidi Long
This annual survey of Chinese judicial practice in private international law in 2006 opens with an analysis of several significant judicial interpretations which will serve as guidelines for Chinese courts at various levels in charge of cases involving foreign elements, and which may give rise to problems calling for further improvements. A statistical analysis follows, examining 50 trans-jurisdictional civil and commercial cases before Chinese courts in 2006, and advocating reasonable invocation of the tool of evasion of law, the doctrine of ordre public and mandatory rules. The judgment rendered by the Supreme People's Court in Starflower Investment Service, Ltd. v. Hangzhou Jinma Real Estate, Ltd. and Hangzhou Future World Recreation, Ltd. is then discussed, with focus on choice of law for guaranties to foreign companies. Finally, after dealing with several cases in point, the authors suggest that the internet should be consulted more frequently in proving foreign law.
{"title":"Chinese Judicial Practice in Private International Law: 2006","authors":"Jin Huang, Lianbin Song, Qingming Li, Weidi Long","doi":"10.1093/CHINESEJIL/JMP025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CHINESEJIL/JMP025","url":null,"abstract":"This annual survey of Chinese judicial practice in private international law in 2006 opens with an analysis of several significant judicial interpretations which will serve as guidelines for Chinese courts at various levels in charge of cases involving foreign elements, and which may give rise to problems calling for further improvements. A statistical analysis follows, examining 50 trans-jurisdictional civil and commercial cases before Chinese courts in 2006, and advocating reasonable invocation of the tool of evasion of law, the doctrine of ordre public and mandatory rules. The judgment rendered by the Supreme People's Court in Starflower Investment Service, Ltd. v. Hangzhou Jinma Real Estate, Ltd. and Hangzhou Future World Recreation, Ltd. is then discussed, with focus on choice of law for guaranties to foreign companies. Finally, after dealing with several cases in point, the authors suggest that the internet should be consulted more frequently in proving foreign law.","PeriodicalId":236019,"journal":{"name":"University of Groningen Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132070592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：